Page 1
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.142 OF 2006
Viplav Sharma … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others …
Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.349 OF 2009
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.30, 152, 156, 177, 191,
194 and 217 OF 2010
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.119 OF 2011
O R D E R
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for some of the Deemed Universities, raised a preliminary
objection in accepting the Prof. Tandon’s report, which
Page 2
2
recommended de-notifying the Deemed University status
to 44 institutions. Learned senior counsel submitted that
none of the procedures enumerated in the draft 2008
Regulations or 2010 Regulations, or the statutory
procedures laid down in the UGC Act, have been followed
by the Committee. Learned senior counsel also submitted
that under the UGC Act, no power is conferred on the
Central Government to constitute such a Committee,
overlooking the Universities Grant Commission.
2. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the UGC
itself had examined the question about de-notifying the
University status given to various institutions and found
only two institutions lacked the necessary requirements
and recommended de-notification. Learned senior
counsel also pointed out various other infirmities in the
Prof. Tandon’s report and submitted that the report has to
be discarded.
3. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel also
submitted that, between 2009 and 2014, many of the
Deemed Universities have rectified the deficiencies
Page 3
3
pointed out by the Tandon Committee Report and UGC
may be directed to conduct a fresh exercise and advise
Central Government accordingly. Shri Mukul Rohtagi,
learned senior counsel urged that most of the institutions
have complied with the statutory requirements laid down
under the Medical Council of India Act, Dental Council of
India Act, and so on. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel also submitted that UGC may be directed to
consider the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the findings
recorded by the Tandon Committee Report as well as the
Report of the Committee of Officers.
4. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor
General, submitted that, in view of the status-quo order
passed by this Court, no final decision has been taken by
the Central Government, either on the basis of the report
of the UGC or Prof. Tandon’s report, affirmed by the report
of the Committee of Officers. Learned ASG also submitted
that the Tandon Committee has examined the status and
the functioning of the various institutions on the basis of
laid down parameters and found that those institutions
Page 4
4
have not satisfied any of those parameters. The Tandon
Committee, it was stated, has categorized the institutions
as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and it is only the institutions included in
‘C’ category which lacked the requirements laid down for
conferring the Deemed University status, both on past
performance and also promise for the future. Learned
ASG also submitted that the Union of India would welcome
the advice of the UGC in this regard on the materials
already on record, including the Tandon Committee
Report. Learned ASG also submitted that no further
hearing is contemplated by the UGC Act before tendering
its advice to the Union of India.
5. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the UGC, submitted that the Prof. Tandon’s
report is yet to be placed before the UGC, so also the
report of the Committee of Officers. Learned senior
counsel also submitted that the UGC will examine all the
reports and the objections, if any, raised by the
institutions against the Tandon Committee Report. UGC
has also no objection to ascertain the present status of the
Page 5
5
institutions before tendering its advice to the Central
Government.
6. The UGC Act has been enacted to make provisions
for the coordination and determination of standards in
Universities. For that purpose, it has established the
UGC. Under Section 3, power has been conferred on the
Central Government, on the advice of the Commission, to
declare any institution for higher education as a Deemed
University, for the purpose of the Act. In exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 3, the University status
has been given to the various institutions.
7. At this moment, we are only concerned with the
legality of the continuance of Deemed University status
with respect to 44 institutions. With regard to the status
of those institutions, it is seen, there is some conflict
between the report prepared by the UGC as well as that of
Prof. Tandon.
8. Regulation 22 of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010 deals with the
Page 6
6
consequences of violation of regulations. Regulations
22.1 enables the Central Government and the Commission
to cause an inspection of the institutions deemed to be
university, or inspection in matter of the institution
deemed to be university. We have now two parallel
inquiries, one conducted by the UGC directly and another
conducted by the Central Government through Prof.
Tandon. But we find that UGC had no occasion to examine
the Prof. Tandon Committee report. Further, we also
notice that there is another report of the Committee of
Officers, which has also not been placed before the UGC.
9. Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to
give a direction to the UGC to examine all the reports, with
notice to all the 44 institutions concerned. Institutions are
free to raise their objections against the reports and the
UGC has to consider the same and take an independent
decision in accordance with law, if necessary, after
affording a hearing, within a period of two months from
today. UGC has then to tender its advice to the Central
Government with its report. Needless to say that the
Page 7
7
advice of the UGC is not binding on the Union of India but
has to be given due weight since the UGC is an expert
statutory authority.
10. We make it clear that we have not given our stamp of
approval to any of the reports and it is for the UGC to
consider all the reports, with notice to the 44 institutions,
in accordance with law.
…..………………………J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J.
(Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi,
January 21, 2014.
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.142 OF 2006
Viplav Sharma … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others …
Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.349 OF 2009
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NOs.30, 152, 156, 177, 191,
194 and 217 OF 2010
AND
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.119 OF 2011
O R D E R
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing
for some of the Deemed Universities, raised a preliminary
objection in accepting the Prof. Tandon’s report, which
Page 2
2
recommended de-notifying the Deemed University status
to 44 institutions. Learned senior counsel submitted that
none of the procedures enumerated in the draft 2008
Regulations or 2010 Regulations, or the statutory
procedures laid down in the UGC Act, have been followed
by the Committee. Learned senior counsel also submitted
that under the UGC Act, no power is conferred on the
Central Government to constitute such a Committee,
overlooking the Universities Grant Commission.
2. Learned senior counsel also pointed out that the UGC
itself had examined the question about de-notifying the
University status given to various institutions and found
only two institutions lacked the necessary requirements
and recommended de-notification. Learned senior
counsel also pointed out various other infirmities in the
Prof. Tandon’s report and submitted that the report has to
be discarded.
3. Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel also
submitted that, between 2009 and 2014, many of the
Deemed Universities have rectified the deficiencies
Page 3
3
pointed out by the Tandon Committee Report and UGC
may be directed to conduct a fresh exercise and advise
Central Government accordingly. Shri Mukul Rohtagi,
learned senior counsel urged that most of the institutions
have complied with the statutory requirements laid down
under the Medical Council of India Act, Dental Council of
India Act, and so on. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel also submitted that UGC may be directed to
consider the matter afresh, uninfluenced by the findings
recorded by the Tandon Committee Report as well as the
Report of the Committee of Officers.
4. Ms. Indira Jaising, learned Additional Solicitor
General, submitted that, in view of the status-quo order
passed by this Court, no final decision has been taken by
the Central Government, either on the basis of the report
of the UGC or Prof. Tandon’s report, affirmed by the report
of the Committee of Officers. Learned ASG also submitted
that the Tandon Committee has examined the status and
the functioning of the various institutions on the basis of
laid down parameters and found that those institutions
Page 4
4
have not satisfied any of those parameters. The Tandon
Committee, it was stated, has categorized the institutions
as ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ and it is only the institutions included in
‘C’ category which lacked the requirements laid down for
conferring the Deemed University status, both on past
performance and also promise for the future. Learned
ASG also submitted that the Union of India would welcome
the advice of the UGC in this regard on the materials
already on record, including the Tandon Committee
Report. Learned ASG also submitted that no further
hearing is contemplated by the UGC Act before tendering
its advice to the Union of India.
5. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel
appearing for the UGC, submitted that the Prof. Tandon’s
report is yet to be placed before the UGC, so also the
report of the Committee of Officers. Learned senior
counsel also submitted that the UGC will examine all the
reports and the objections, if any, raised by the
institutions against the Tandon Committee Report. UGC
has also no objection to ascertain the present status of the
Page 5
5
institutions before tendering its advice to the Central
Government.
6. The UGC Act has been enacted to make provisions
for the coordination and determination of standards in
Universities. For that purpose, it has established the
UGC. Under Section 3, power has been conferred on the
Central Government, on the advice of the Commission, to
declare any institution for higher education as a Deemed
University, for the purpose of the Act. In exercise of the
powers conferred under Section 3, the University status
has been given to the various institutions.
7. At this moment, we are only concerned with the
legality of the continuance of Deemed University status
with respect to 44 institutions. With regard to the status
of those institutions, it is seen, there is some conflict
between the report prepared by the UGC as well as that of
Prof. Tandon.
8. Regulation 22 of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be
Universities) Regulations, 2010 deals with the
Page 6
6
consequences of violation of regulations. Regulations
22.1 enables the Central Government and the Commission
to cause an inspection of the institutions deemed to be
university, or inspection in matter of the institution
deemed to be university. We have now two parallel
inquiries, one conducted by the UGC directly and another
conducted by the Central Government through Prof.
Tandon. But we find that UGC had no occasion to examine
the Prof. Tandon Committee report. Further, we also
notice that there is another report of the Committee of
Officers, which has also not been placed before the UGC.
9. Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to
give a direction to the UGC to examine all the reports, with
notice to all the 44 institutions concerned. Institutions are
free to raise their objections against the reports and the
UGC has to consider the same and take an independent
decision in accordance with law, if necessary, after
affording a hearing, within a period of two months from
today. UGC has then to tender its advice to the Central
Government with its report. Needless to say that the
Page 7
7
advice of the UGC is not binding on the Union of India but
has to be given due weight since the UGC is an expert
statutory authority.
10. We make it clear that we have not given our stamp of
approval to any of the reports and it is for the UGC to
consider all the reports, with notice to the 44 institutions,
in accordance with law.
…..………………………J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
………………………….J.
(Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi,
January 21, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment